convicted1
Guest
So you're saying that "Lucifer" was a name given to the Babylonian king?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is Satan, Lucifer and the Devil differing names for the evil one?
- Thread starter convicted1
- Start date
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Not even remotely. I am saying that the word "lucifer" was not invented as a word (or proper name) in English until the first time it appears in English translation. These translations did not use the Hebrew for this word but transliterated from the Latin translation. If anyone (yes a Babylonian king) was called something, he was called helel. It probably wasn't a proper name, though. So Lucifer is a 16-17th century creation that never existed before that. No one ever believed Satan used to be called "Lucifer" until English translations using the Latin term in transliteration. Thus it is a silly doctrine and completely anachronistic.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Greektim,
I post this to you....I know you are well educated in ancient languages and biblical studies.
I vaguely remember my OT Prof (in a survey class) speak of the hebrews having very little to no concept of spiritual beings (angels and the like) until after the Babylonian captivity. Do you have any such knowledge...could you clear that up for me?
I post this to you....I know you are well educated in ancient languages and biblical studies.
I vaguely remember my OT Prof (in a survey class) speak of the hebrews having very little to no concept of spiritual beings (angels and the like) until after the Babylonian captivity. Do you have any such knowledge...could you clear that up for me?
convicted1
Guest
So Isaiah 13-14 has to do solely with the Babylonian king, and not satan? Correct?
helel, morning star, phosphorus, — whatever.
I thought your question was about the subject of the prophecy, not the etymology of the word, lucifer.
To say the prophecy has nothing to do whatever with Satan is like saying the West Wing has nothing to do with Obama.
:laugh: ............ :wavey:
preacher4truth
Active Member
phosphorus is the cousin of Saul Ferr. :laugh:
Oh that is just bad! :laugh:
preacher4truth
Active Member
I never said that. (ok, I did but) My 3 year old typed that out!!! :wavey: :laugh:
convicted1
Guest
Let me try to clear up the muddy H2O up a bit, okay?
Wednesday evening, I was talking, via the phone, with a UB Elder(ordained preacher, iow), and we began discussing the bible. We ended up on the subject of Satan. I made a reference to Satan's fall being told in Isaiah 14. He then told me that Satan wasn't Lucifer whatsoever, but that Lucifer was a man, who was king of Babylon, if I am remembering correctly. This caught me off guard, because I thought that chapter, and Ezekiel 28 told of Satan.
That's why I asked if Satan, the one who rebelled against God, was Lucifer. I have always thought that Lucifer and Satan were the same individual.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Neither is Isa. 14 referring to Satan nor was the Babylonian king ever called "lucifer" until English translations botched it up.
Gesenius didn't think "lucifer" is a bad rendering, but it doesn't matter. I would simply caution the reader against throwing the baby out with the bath water.* Who knows why the word was transliterated here, but the assumption that the translation was "botched" because of a lack of scholarship on the part of the translators is amateurish and lacks merit.
*The bath water here being the widely popular assumption that Isaiah 14 is a direct revelation about the person of Satan, and the baby being eminently relevant implications gleaned concerning said person.
*The bath water here being the widely popular assumption that Isaiah 14 is a direct revelation about the person of Satan, and the baby being eminently relevant implications gleaned concerning said person.
Last edited by a moderator:
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Read any scholarly commentary on Isaiah and then talk to me about amateurish and lacking merit. Otherwise, your view is sinking in sand.
Robert Snow
New Member
I believe what you are saying is that the "scholarly commentary" is the one you agree with.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
On this occasion, yes I will go w/ scholarly commentaries.
Since there is little scholarly debate on the fact Lucifer as a name for the Satan, did not exist before the English Translation, what Greektim has engendered is a debate with KJV advocates, which is a waste of time. The actual debate is whether this figure is a double referent to the king or line of kings in view contextually and "the Satan" or simply a vague reference to a king or line of kings.
I would side with Dr. Wallace that this is probably not a reference to the Satan. His translation, i.e. the NET, has shining one, but howling one makes for a far better taunt.
I would side with Dr. Wallace that this is probably not a reference to the Satan. His translation, i.e. the NET, has shining one, but howling one makes for a far better taunt.
Last edited by a moderator:
DrJamesAch
New Member
Go back and read my responses in post 28 and 29. Lucifer was not a "transliteration" and those who say otherwise do not know what they are talking about, and have no understanding of how languages work.
How hast thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer! son of the morning! v. 11, v. 12. The king of Babylon shone as brightly as the morning star, and fancied that wherever he came he brought day along with him; and has such an illustrious prince as this fallen, such a star become a clod of clay? Did ever any man fall from such a height of honour and power into such an abyss of shame and misery?’’ This has been commonly alluded to (and it is a mere allusion) to illustrate the fall of the angels, who were as morning stars
. . .
He affected to appear in the utmost magnificence. But that was not the worst: it was the temper of his mind, and the elevation of that, that ripened him for ruin (v. 13, v. 14): Thou has said in thy heart, like Lucifer, I will ascend into heaven. Here is the language of his vainglory, borrowed perhaps from that of the angels who fell, who not content with their first estate, the post assigned them, would vie with God, and become not only independent of him, but equal with him. Or perhaps it refers to the story of Nebuchadnezzar, who, when he would be more than a man, was justly turned into a brute,—Matthew Henry
. . .
He affected to appear in the utmost magnificence. But that was not the worst: it was the temper of his mind, and the elevation of that, that ripened him for ruin (v. 13, v. 14): Thou has said in thy heart, like Lucifer, I will ascend into heaven. Here is the language of his vainglory, borrowed perhaps from that of the angels who fell, who not content with their first estate, the post assigned them, would vie with God, and become not only independent of him, but equal with him. Or perhaps it refers to the story of Nebuchadnezzar, who, when he would be more than a man, was justly turned into a brute,—Matthew Henry
Got Genesius and Henry. Two eminent scholars.
Last edited by a moderator:
convicted1
Guest
To Brothers GreekTim and Aaron:
I have a Nave's Topical bible at home, and the other day, I looked up Lucifer and this is what he stated:
I don't know much about Orville J. Nave and how reliable he was, but I wanted to toss this into the thread for some more debate.
http://www.naves-topical-bible.com/LUCIFER.html
I have a Nave's Topical bible at home, and the other day, I looked up Lucifer and this is what he stated:
I don't know much about Orville J. Nave and how reliable he was, but I wanted to toss this into the thread for some more debate.
http://www.naves-topical-bible.com/LUCIFER.html